I would like to respond to the “Homosexuality Redefined” article of Karl von Uhl in the Feb. 23 issue of the Daily.

It seems to me that Mr. von Uhl is rather sensitive on the issue. He argues rather emphatically against my qualifications on having just an opinion on the subject, even though no one asked for, or questioned his credentials to present his ideas. He also feels that it is necessary to be offensive in order to strengthen his approach.

These are mere semantics.

According to the “expert opinion” of Mr. von Uhl, I’m not qualified to translate the verse, but a reader who has access to both articles will find that his grammatical translation of all words is exactly the same to the one I proposed. Mr. von Uhl could not find the word “arsenikos” (an hellenistic as well as modern greek version of the ancient greek word “aren”) in his dictionary, but the end result is the same. It stands for “male.”

I did not comment on the gender of the subject to word “arsenikoitai,” since the gender was not clear from the verse. Consequently, I proposed as translation “an INDIVIDUAL who sleeps with males.” Moreover, I did not use the word “homosexual” anywhere in my letter.

My intentions are not to interpret the spirit of the verse for the ISU Daily readers, as I did not want to do it in my first article. Mr. von Uhl is eager do that for all of us.

I simply present my opinion on material I believe I know and I can document. If one can prove that I make a mistake on that, I am willing to admit it. Like most of us, I have been wrong in the past. I can read and translate classical and hellenistic greek, so I stop with that. I do not present solutions to theological or metaphysical anxieties one may have.

To conclude, I would like to add that non-scientific methods of “exegesis” are never acceptable. This is true IN PARTICULAR during our college years where we are supposed to learn how to formulate, structure and express our thoughts. It’s not wise to presume that students are not able to form an opinion when a variety of different (or “misleading”) arguments address a question from different points of view.

There is this one amendment of the United States Constitution which was probably inspired by and may be relevant to that …

Vassilios Charmandaris

Paris, France